Sen. Nancy Skinner takes on the NCAA. Passage could make California a dream state for college athletes.

Fyght4Cal said:

---

Sen. Nancy Skinner takes on the NCAA. Passage could make California a dream state for college athletes.

---

What a concept! This is one piece of legislation that I would love to see implemented in California.

How about iconic Berkeley street crazies?

AXLBear said:

---

"What a concept! This is one piece of legislation that I would love to see implemented in California."

Why because you want to see the death of college sports?

---

I think you meant the above response for 71Bear, yes?

bearister said:

---

How about iconic Berkeley street crazies?

---

The NCAA ruled that they are free to panhandle to their heart's content, without any loss of eligibility.

AXLBear said:

---

"What a concept! This is one piece of legislation that I would love to see implemented in California."

Why because you want to see the death of college sports?

---

Why would this be the death of college sports? It side steps the main argument the pro-amateurism crowd has - that if they pay players, they cannot use the money from football/basketball to fund the minor sports, many of which ensure the school is in Title IX compliance. By allowing players to sell their likeness, the money comes from outside and that is no longer an issue.

AXLBear said:

---

"What a concept! This is one piece of legislation that I would love to see implemented in California."

Why because you want to see the death of college sports?

---

I believe it is the right thing to do. Sometimes the right thing is uncomfortable because it upsets the status quo. Later, everyone looks back and says, "What were we thinking, that was a great idea. In fact, why didn't we do it sooner".

College athletes should not be treated as cogs in the wheel of a multi-billion dollar industry. They are the reason for the success of the industry. They should be treated accordingly. It is time to begin paying them for the use of their likeness.

The issue is this:

USC says, "Come play for our college. We have wealthy donors who will guarantee to buy $20,000 worth of merchandise with your likeness on it if you play here."

And suddenly the school with the most money has all the best athletes by paying for them indirectly.

Fyght4Cal said:

---

bearister said:

---

How about iconic Berkeley street crazies?

---

The NCAA ruled that they are free to panhandle to their heart's content, without any loss of eligibility.

---

But I heard that Holy Hubert T's are going for $150 a pop.

MrGPAC said:

---

The issue is this:

USC says, "Come play for our college. We have wealthy donors who will guarantee to buy $20,000 worth of merchandise with your likeness on it if you play here."

And suddenly the school with the most money has all the best athletes by paying for them indirectly.

---

Because no college sports team is paying indirectly for really good talent.

MrGPAC said:

---

The issue is this:

USC says, "Come play for our college. We have wealthy donors who will guarantee to buy $20,000 worth of merchandise with your likeness on it if you play here."

And suddenly the school with the most money has all the best athletes by paying for them indirectly.

---

The players should not suffer because you think it makes an uneven playing field. There's already an uneven playing field, anyways.

MrGPAC said:

---

The issue is this:

USC says, "Come play for our college. We have wealthy donors who will guarantee to buy $20,000 worth of merchandise with your likeness on it if you play here."

And suddenly the school with the most money has all the best athletes by paying for them indirectly.

---

It is unlikely the contracts with college guys would include a "per item sold" clause. I believe the contracts would specify a lump sum payment for rights that could be used in a variety of mediums not just on clothing. Once a company purchases the rights to an image (with monies paid directly to the player), they would be free to use the image in the manner specified in the contract.

Therefore, company A owned by a loyal SC partisan could choose to enter into a contractual agreement with player X to market his image. If so, big deal. Heck, Cal could do the same if someone like the guy who owned the tech company that sponsored the playing field a couple years ago decided to market his product by using a Cal player's image.

College football has already made the leap into "a few controlling the marketplace" through targeted national recruiting. This new plan would not change the dynamics of who is on top. Bama would still rule the game (as long as Saban is in charge there).

AXLBear said:

---

"What a concept! This is one piece of legislation that I would love to see implemented in California."

Why because you want to see the death of college sports?

---

Too much money is being made to let it die. But yeah there's a problem. College sports (FB and hoops) are a multi-billion dollar industry yet the players/work force are amateurs with many restrictions, aren't getting paid.

Yeah, yeah, they get a "free" education but can't work during the school year, don't have rights to their own image? Something has to change...and this is a start. Otherwise the whole thing goes down the crapper.

Reform is coming, because it has to. The open transfer in FB is a sure sign the NCAA realizes it has to give the players something...or they'll get serious about actually getting paid. So they threw them a bone to hope for a stall and forgetaboutit.

What about our friends in Oregon?
Nike will sign you up as soon as you commit!

Soon more states will follow, if this passes, in California.

Potentially, a new, legal system of paying players could force out some of the dirty money. Players could get paid and still play for their dream school, instead of the highest under-the-table paying school. Could this even the playing field between the dirty schools and the relatively clean colleges?

On the other hand, it significantly changed the balance of power between the players and the universities. Players will be looking for the school that best boosts their personal brands. Not only by winning, but also by featuring the player on the field/court and in the media. That seems to give recruits/players serious bargaining power with coaches. O brave new world.

azulviejo said:

---

What about our friends in Oregon?
Nike will sign you up as soon as you commit!

Soon more states will follow, if this passes, in California.

---

No they won't. They won't bother with the two star whose chances of seeing plays from the LOS are very slim. The scout team/practice depth guys can only dream of receiving attention from Nike.

MrGPAC said:

---

The issue is this:

USC says, "Come play for our college. We have wealthy donors who will guarantee to buy $20,000 worth of merchandise with your likeness on it if you play here."

And suddenly the school with the most money has all the best athletes by paying for them indirectly.

---

And this is different than what we have?

I think this would likely help the following:

- Bluebloods
- Big money schools (i.e. Oregon)
- Schools in big media markets

And it would probably hurt:

- Rural schools
- Schools with small-medium funding

Essentially it helps the haves and hurts the have nots BUT if you're in the right place (say, like, Charlotte), you'll have a chance to fill in the void left by the small money school that would have sometimes overperformed, like a Kansas State or a Wake Forest

packawana said:

---

I think this would likely help the following:

- Bluebloods
- Big money schools (i.e. Oregon)
- Schools in big media markets

And it would probably hurt:

- Rural schools
- Schools with small-medium funding

Essentially it helps the haves and hurts the have nots BUT if you're in the right place (say, like, Charlotte), you'll have a chance to fill in the void left by the small money school that would have sometimes overperformed, like a Kansas State or a Wake Forest

---

In order for it to help, the other state legislatures would have to pass similar bills. Assuming the NCAA remains opposed to the policy. Most states have part time legislatures. So it might take at least two years to catch up. But even then, there's no guarantee that the bills would pass and be signed by the respective governors. In the meantime the California schools have a healthy head start.

Just because it is legal does not mean it would happen. If it does happen at a California school, it occurs to me that even though legal, it would be grounds for dismissal from the NCAA. The result could be that California schools end up being non-participants in NCAA sponsored sports. Of course, this all would mostly affect football. With no recent football team from California being a contender for top banana in the NCAA, my guess is the NCAA would say goodbye to California teams and not care at all.

On the other hand, we could form a California league where we play amongst ourselves, pay players, and start attracting exceptional talent that wants an above board system of pay for play. If we just play California schools, we will be limited in the quality of competition, at least initially.

(All references in this post to California are referring to the state, not our University of California)

I wonder how this will affect the "Photographers" on the field. They would have to negotiate with every player on each team to use their image or likeness. I imagine a situation where a "star" (who has been paid) hurdles a walk-on for the winning touchdown. Since the walk-on wasn't paid the dramatic photo can't be used?

It may be possible to pay 'the stars' but most action plays involve players who are not 'the stars'.
Seems difficult to implement fairly...

sp4149 said:

---

I wonder how this will affect the "Photographers" on the field. They would have to negotiate with every player on each team to use their image or likeness. I imagine a situation where a "star" (who has been paid) hurdles a walk-on for the winning touchdown. Since the walk-on wasn't paid the dramatic photo can't be used?

It may be possible to pay 'the stars' but most action plays involve players who are not 'the stars'.
Seems difficult to implement fairly...

---

How is this situation any different from red carpet photos of celebrities? Photographers don't pay for those.

GMP said:

---

AXLBear said:

---

"What a concept! This is one piece of legislation that I would love to see implemented in California."

Why because you want to see the death of college sports?

---

Why would this be the death of college sports? It side steps the main argument the pro-amateurism crowd has - that if they pay players, they cannot use the money from football/basketball to fund the minor sports, many of which ensure the school is in Title IX compliance. By allowing players to sell their likeness, the money comes from outside and that is no longer an issue.

---

It would also obviate the need to put players on payroll. Only a small number, perhaps 2-5%, of college players have any real market value beyond that represented by their scholarships. Let them hire agents, get what they can from image rights or personal service contracts (perhaps with a share of any income over a certain threshold going back to reimburse the school for the cost of scholarships). Of course this does open Pandora's box to a situation in which Phil Knight and his ilk could sign up a bunch of prospects for a particular school but the traditional powers have always found a way to unbalance the playing field so I suspect equilibrium would quickly be restored. Or, we could let the shoe/apparel companies be the employers of record and they could parcel the talent out to the schools wearing their product and the NCAA could be replaced by the U. S. Chamber of Commerce for oversight of college sports.

GMP said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

The issue is this:

USC says, "Come play for our college. We have wealthy donors who will guarantee to buy $20,000 worth of merchandise with your likeness on it if you play here."

And suddenly the school with the most money has all the best athletes by paying for them indirectly.

---

The players should not suffer because you think it makes an uneven playing field. There's already an uneven playing field, anyways.

---

Don't get me wrong...the whole situation is screwed and needs to be remedied. A guaranteed flat salary regardless of where you play makes a lot more sense to me, at least in terms of attempting to create a level playing field, though that obviously has its own pitfalls as well.

A salary cap system would be amusing to see, mainly in how different schools allocate the funds.

Personally I would prefer that there be an actual minor leagues for football that players can go to if they don't have interest in the education aspect of playing for a school.

"Ain't Come to Play SCHOOL".

One player got quoted saying it...but you know a lot of players feel the same way. I'd rather have people who want to be student athletes go to college to play football, and people who just want a path to the NFL go to an official minor league where they get paid to play with money instead of an education.

MrGPAC said:

---

GMP said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

The issue is this:

USC says, "Come play for our college. We have wealthy donors who will guarantee to buy $20,000 worth of merchandise with your likeness on it if you play here."

And suddenly the school with the most money has all the best athletes by paying for them indirectly.

---

The players should not suffer because you think it makes an uneven playing field. There's already an uneven playing field, anyways.

---

Don't get me wrong...the whole situation is screwed and needs to be remedied. A guaranteed flat salary regardless of where you play makes a lot more sense to me, at least in terms of attempting to create a level playing field, though that obviously has its own pitfalls as well.

A salary cap system would be amusing to see, mainly in how different schools allocate the funds.

Personally I would prefer that there be an actual minor leagues for football that players can go to if they don't have interest in the education aspect of playing for a school.

"Ain't Come to Play SCHOOL".

One player got quoted saying it...but you know a lot of players feel the same way. I'd rather have people who want to be student athletes go to college to play football, and people who just want a path to the NFL go to an official minor league where they get paid to play with money instead of an education.

---

I'll say it again....north of 95% of the athletes on scholarship in the revenue sports have no market value beyond that represented by their scholarships. This makes instituting any salary system financial insanity for all but the 2 dozen or so programs that actually operate in the black and that number would likely dwindle if a salary system comes to pass. I don't like that coaches have virtually unrestricted mobility and some are paid obscene salaries based on their manipulation of a restricted labor pool but that's capitalism. How much does an "associate" at Amazon make relative to what Bezos draws (or the average annual value of a college scholarship)? I don't have a problem with players cashing in via image rights or endorsements but I strongly believe a salary system will kill college sports. then again, maybe it is past time that our institutions of learning got out of the entertainment business.

Fyght4Cal said:

---

Potentially, a new, legal system of paying players could force out some of the dirty money. Players could get paid and still play for their dream school, instead of the highest under-the-table paying school. Could this even the playing field between the dirty schools and the relatively clean colleges?

On the other hand, it significantly changed the balance of power between the players and the universities. Players will be looking for the school that best boosts their personal brands. Not only by winning, but also by featuring the player on the field/court and in the media. That seems to give recruits/players serious bargaining power with coaches. O brave new world.

---

I don't think so. Who as ever turned down extra free money because they were already getting some money? Players will still sell their services.

Regarding the feeling of some that this could help CA schools....if anything this could kill CA schools. Just because it's legal doesn't mean the NCAA has to sanction it. Every kid who makes money this way could be declared ineligible.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Fyght4Cal said:

---

Potentially, a new, legal system of paying players could force out some of the dirty money. Players could get paid and still play for their dream school, instead of the highest under-the-table paying school. Could this even the playing field between the dirty schools and the relatively clean colleges?

On the other hand, it significantly changed the balance of power between the players and the universities. Players will be looking for the school that best boosts their personal brands. Not only by winning, but also by featuring the player on the field/court and in the media. That seems to give recruits/players serious bargaining power with coaches. O brave new world.

---

I don't think so. Who as ever turned down extra free money because they were already getting some money? Players will still sell their services.

Regarding the feeling of some that this could help CA schools....if anything this could kill CA schools. Just because it's legal doesn't mean the NCAA has to sanction it. Every kid who makes money this way could be declared ineligible.

---

This doesn't make sense. There are two basic scenarios that could play out if this law passes. The first is that it forces the NCAA to change the rules to comply with the CA law. The second is that the NCAA doesn't change the rules and any player who takes money in exchange for a license of his/her likeness would be declared ineligible. But how would that "kill CA schools"? CA schools would be in the exact same boat as every other state's schools: if players accept money, they are ineligible. In fact, your last two sentences describe the present status quo for all schools/athletes: it's legal (as in, the law, not NCAA rules) to sell your likeness and the NCAA will declare every player who does so ineligible.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Fyght4Cal said:

---

Potentially, a new, legal system of paying players could force out some of the dirty money. Players could get paid and still play for their dream school, instead of the highest under-the-table paying school. Could this even the playing field between the dirty schools and the relatively clean colleges?

On the other hand, it significantly changed the balance of power between the players and the universities. Players will be looking for the school that best boosts their personal brands. Not only by winning, but also by featuring the player on the field/court and in the media. That seems to give recruits/players serious bargaining power with coaches. O brave new world.

---

I don't think so. Who as ever turned down extra free money because they were already getting some money? Players will still sell their services.

Regarding the feeling of some that this could help CA schools....if anything this could kill CA schools. Just because it's legal doesn't mean the NCAA has to sanction it. Every kid who makes money this way could be declared ineligible.

---

The NCAA can try and kill this opportunity if they want . At best it will be murder-suicide.